Sunday, March 31, 2013

Homeschooling Family Face Deportation by the US Government


Homeschooling Family Face Deportation by the US Government

By Julio Severo
The US government is contesting a court decision that had granted asylum to a homeschooling family from Germany. US officials argue that the German Christian family, who were suffering religious persecution from German officials, should be deported back to Germany.
The Romeikes
Uwe and Hannelore Romeike fled Germany in 2008 after authorities fined them thousands in euros and forcibly took their children because they homeschool. In 2010, a U.S. immigration judge granted the Romeikes political asylum — the first time this status was granted based on compulsory schooling laws. The judge found the family had legitimate fear of persecution in Germany, where a small group of Christian homeschooling families have already been jailed, fined, and stripped of their children. 
But the Department of Homeland Security immediately disputed the judge’s decision. Attorney General Eric Holder has also entered the dispute, arguing Germany’s ban on homeschooling fails to violate the family’s fundamental rights. 
Is religious freedom no longer important for America? Apparently not, especially if the victim is a follower of Jesus Christ.
Weeks ago Secretary of State John Kerry was barely off the plane in Germany before he embarrassed the Pilgrims and American founders with what is perhaps the worst statement on religious freedom ever offered. Kerry said the United States protects religious freedom because “In America, you have a right to be stupid.”
This is a very interesting statement coming from the US government. The US State Department has not only made homosexual rights its top priority, but it has also been advocating them around the world. And if Third World nations do not accept them, US aid is denied. America is determined to impose her homosexual imperialism on the world because she sees sexual perversion as more important than persecution of Christians. And if you do not see such interests as top priority, the US cultural warfare machine will label you “stupid.”
The problem is that the Romeikes did not flee Germany because of such interests. They fled because the German government is insistent on its defense of an old Third Reich law banning homeschooling. The Nazi law is being used now to persecute Christian families who homeschool their children.
If forced to return to their native Germany, the Christian family faces huge fines and criminal penalties, and could lose custody of their five school-age children.
Michael Farris, founding chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association, is suing the US Department of Justice on behalf of the Romeikes. He said, “I really wonder what would’ve happened to the Pilgrims under this administration.”
The Pilgrims are very fortunate not to be alive today to apply for asylum in America. Fortunately for them, they arrived at America in a non-politically correct century.
They wanted America to be a safe harbor for persecuted Christians. Instead, America has increasingly become a safe harbor for homosexual activists from other nations. I have read about gay activists from Brazil who were granted asylum by asserting that there is persecution of gays in Brazil.
The Brazilian government bestows millions on gay groups and their political projects. They have government, media and other powerful institutions — even the United Nations — prostrated at their feet. In contrast, Christians preaching against their filthy behavior are threatened and persecuted by the Brazilian government and media.
Even so, Brazilian homosexuals are able to get asylum in America.
In today’s “free America” (free for sodomy), only gay Pilgrims would be welcome. Immigration officials would ask them, “Why are you coming to America?”
And they might respond, “Because the Brazilian government has refused to grant us billions of dollars for our comprehensive cause of societal change. We have received only a few millions. This is persecution! This is ‘homophobia!’”
Yet, the sheer stupidity is not Brazilian gays being granted asylum to join their American lovers in America and increase their power for ideological militancy. The right to be stupid, according to Kerry, belongs to people hungry for freedom to worship God and homeschool their children, not to depraved individuals hungry for filthy homosexual sex acts.
In this progressive view, the love of anal sex makes one a bright and intelligent individual, deserving a welcome in America to enjoy all her benefits.
In this view, the Pilgrims — and any Christian faithful to the Lord Jesus Christ and His Word — are just stupid.
Please pray for the Romeike family. They came to America in the wrong century!
With information from Daily Mail, World Magazine, Charisma and WND.
Portuguese version of this article: Governo dos EUA quer deportar família cristã
Recommended Reading:

Thursday, March 21, 2013

“What does ANAJURE exist for?” The Marco Feliciano case


“What does ANAJURE exist for?” The Marco Feliciano case

Is the defense of civil liberties above religious differences? Or is it not?

By Julio Severo
Rep. Marco Feliciano has been under heavy fire from gay supremacists in Brazil, because he was appointed in 5 March to head the Human Rights Congressional Committee (HRCC) in the Brazilian House of Representatives.
Marco Feliciano
They are furious not only at his stances on homosexuality and abortion, but also because HRCC had always been headed by the ruling socialist Workers’ Party and other socialists, who operated this congressional committee to approve the allocation of millions of taxpayer money to homosexualist projects.
Under this socialist leadership, HRCC also discussed ways to criminalize criticism of homosexuality. Abortion and homosexual sex were their top priority concern.
Gay supremacists were satisfied to see their demands served by hardline socialists.
Then came Marco Feliciano, an Assemblies of God minister. Feliciano has not been theologically trained and has a hard time to express his views in philosophical terms. Nevertheless, he has been clear about values. His simple Pentecostal background has led him to take a firm stand against abortion and homosexuality.
So he has been pressed by all sides to resign: gay supremacists, liberal politicians, abortion groups, liberal media and… liberal Protestants.
A massive group of these Protestants, comprised also by gay Protestant militants, is petitioning the Brazilian government and Congress to remove Feliciano from the HRCC presidency. The House of Representatives president officially wants Feliciano to step down. The president of his party, under such pressure, wants him to resign as well.

Silas Malafaia, renowned Brazilian Pentecostal Televangelist, Supports Feliciano

A number of pro-family Christians, including Catholics, are supporting Marco Feliciano.
The Portuguese version of The Christian Post reported yesterday Silas Malafaia and Julio Severo as the main evangelical voices in Brazil asking Feliciano not to resign. Malafaia is also an Assemblies of God minister and has a massive audience through his weekly religious TV shows.
Silas Malafaia
In the The Christian Post article, Malafaia said that the attacks against Feliciano are coming from leftists.
He has been outspoken about abortion and homosexuality. Like Feliciano, he is not afraid to call abortion a murder and homosexuality a sin. But unlike Feliciano, he is much more articulate.
Yet, both Malafaia and I understand that this is not the proper time for us to judge Feliciano for his lack of theological training and philosophical gifts. Therefore, on account of his like outspoken stance on defense of family values, Feliciano needs support, not criticism or condemnation.

ANAJURE

So it is a surprise that ANAJURE issued a public message, on March 20, saying the presence of Feliciano in HRCC “is going to divide, even more, the Evangelical Church” in Brazil.
ANAJURE is a recently born group of Brazilian Protestant attorneys whose purported mission is to defend fundamental civil liberties, especially of Christians.
But its public message, signed by its president, Uziel Santana, has no such defense for the fundamental civil liberties of Feliciano. On the contrary, it accuses the Assemblies of God minister of “fomenting a holy war for his intolerant actions against intolerant” individuals and groups.
The message also questions the personal motivations of the Pentecostal minister, by saying “All of this because personal projects are above the values of the Truth of the Gospel of Christ.”
Reportedly, ANAJURE has had its first defection yesterday, because one of its directors strongly disagreed with the message against Feliciano.
From a Christian group self-appointed to defend fundamental civil liberties, we Brazilians should expect such a defense, regardless the doctrinal differences of the Christian victim. But this is a very hard test for ANAJURE, whose Advisory Council is headed by Rev. Augustus Nicodemus Lopes.

A Gay Activist in a Presbyterian University

Lopes is the chancellor of the Mackenzie Presbyterian University in São Paulo. He has several theological essays against Pentecostal and charismatic movements. Some of his articles are available, in Portuguese, in the website of his university.
On February 28, his university hosted a debate with Jean Wyllys, a member of the Brazilian House of Representatives. Wyllys is also a radical gay militant, working very hard in HRCC to advance the gay agenda.
To debate the gay activist, Lopes invited one of his friends in ANAJURE. But the students in the Presbyterian university booed the representative of ANAJURE, and praised Wyllys.
In the end, Lopes denied that he had sponsored the event, but the official university paper confirms that the debate was held in partnership with the university chancellor office.
This is not the only strange case involving its chancellor. In 2010 he had removed from the university website a Presbyterian manifesto against the gay agenda, because gay activists demanded it. He gave way. But he has never removed his several articles and manifestos against Pentecostals and charismatics.
My exposé of the inconsistent partnership, and the shameful fact that a gay activist was given an opportunity to defend his perversions in a Protestant university, resounded throughout Brazil. Major Protestant news websites published or mentioned my article.

Censorship

GospelPrime, GospelMais, Portal Fé em Jesus (Faith in Jesus’ Portal) and other Brazilian websites were contacted by ANAJURE, which asked them to remove my article and, in its place, publish ANAJURE articles.
One of the editors, who was under ANAJURE pressure, told me, “Sincerely, I do not know what ANAJURE exists for.”
GospelPrime, GospelMais and others gave in. Yet, Portal Fé em Jesus scolded ANAJURE for its aggression against free speech — in this case, my free speech.
The fact is, if ANAJURE had scolded Lopes for allowing a gay activist in his university, it would not need to ask major Protestant websites in Brazil to censor my fundamental civil liberties to denounce Lopes’ behavior.
Yet, even under duress, my article has had a significant repercussion in Brazil. The Facebook page of Silas Malafaia has spread it to its 168,000 followers.
What about ANAJURE and its purported mission to defend fundamental civil liberties? It is facing a hard time to do it in the case of Marco Feliciano, because its president thinks it is necessary to judge his character and motivations, but it is unable to do it in the case of one of its own directors.
And if you expose him for allowing a gay activist in his Protestant university or for him giving way to gay militants demanding the removal from his university of a Christian manifesto against the gay agenda, ANAJURE shows its muscle to defend cowardice and censor a Christian message against it.
ANAJURE is free to defend and attack anyone it wishes.
Even disagreeing with him, I will support Marco Feliciano for his courage, and I pray that he may not give in to cowards who want him to copy their cowardice.
Recommended Reading:

Monday, March 04, 2013

Gay militant Jean Wyllys at Brazilian Presbyterian University


Gay militant Jean Wyllys at Brazilian Presbyterian University

Has Mackenzie Presbyterian University given in to politically correct trends?

By Julio Severo
In its debate entitled “Sexual Diversity and Religious Freedom: A Possible Marriage?” on February 28, 2013, Mackenzie Presbyterian University in Brazil, in partnership with its chancellery, invited congressman Jean Wyllys, a gay supremacist, to address sexual diversity.
In its presentation featuring Wyllys, the university said of him: “A militant for civil freedoms, he worked in the base ecclesial communities in the Catholic Church. Partner in LGBT, black and women movements. He is involved in activism to fight homophobia, intolerance and religious fundamentalisms.”
To avoid a 100% homosexualist debate, Chancellor Augustus Nicodemus Lopes also invited Dr. Guilherme Zanina Schelb, member of the Advisory Council of ANAJURE, of which Lopes himself is the president of the Council.
In the presentation featuring Schelb as a federal prosecutor, Mackenzie stressed that this member of ANAJURE became internationally famous as a coordinator of some major investigations, including one designated “Araguaia Guerrilla.” This investigation, according to the Brazilian Senate, was to answer the requests of relatives of the 68 communist guerrilla combatants who died in battles against Brazilian soldiers in Araguaia, in the North of Brazil in the early 1970s. Those criminals fought against the Brazilian government to establish a communist dictatorship in Brazil.
As if this were not sufficiently sinister, Schelb has been accused of trying to enrich himself with his research, an attitude conflicting with Christian ethics, particularly when profits are obtained in whitewashing outright communist criminals.
Despite all this, he is known as “moderate,” whatever this means.
Until now, Mackenzie had not made available the contents of the speeches of Wyllys or Schelb, but a student of the Presbyterian university, who attended the debate, expressed openly that she loved the speech of the gay supremacist, saying:
(Twitter) From a Mackenzie student to Jean Wyllys: “I am of Mackenzie e I just came from the debate! I am IMPRESSED by your ability to debate and your intelligence.”
One cannot say, however, that Mackenzie was the first Protestant institution in Brazil to invite a gay activist for a debate on sexual diversity. That dubious “honor” belongs to the Higher School of Theology (HST), which held an event in 2006 where the most famous participant was Luiz Mott, leader of the Brazilian gay movement accused of defending pedophilia. HST belongs to the Evangelical Church of the Lutheran Confession in Brazil.
What we can expect next after Luiz Mott in HST and Jean Wyllys in Mackenzie? Toni Reis, president of a large gay group in Brazil, at the blatantly leftist Methodist University of São Paulo?
While struggling to understand how Wyllys’ participation could provide some benefit for Brazilian Christianity or for the Presbyterian university itself, I read in the Twitter account of Wyllys his message recommending Ricardo Gondim, a famous progressive minister in Brazil, who has been corrupted by the Liberation Theology ideas:
(Twitter) From Wyllys to Ricardo Gondim: Beautiful text by the minister (a real minister, refined, sensitive, progressive).
Another message of Wyllys shamelessly recommends Paulo Ghiraldelli, a Brazilian philosopher known for his explicit defense of homosexuality and pedophilia:
(Twitter) By Jean Wyllys: Interesting contribution for the debate. Have you read this article by Ghiraldelli?
How could a Protestant university invite a homosexual activist who recommends an advocate of pedophilia? Besides, how could a Presbyterian university present him as an individual actively involved in the “fight against homophobia, intolerance and religious fundamentalisms?” Are they not ashamed of this?
Could they invite him at least for evangelization purposes? Of course. All institutions carrying the Christian name have an obligation to evangelize promoters of abominations, not to promote them.
In the case of Wyllys, who was trained in the base ecclesiastic communities, well-known hotbeds of Marxist Liberation Theology, it was a duty of the Mackenzie chancellery to veto and reject the granting of free ideological publicity for a well-known gay supremacist.
In 2010, the same chancellery, under pressure from such supremacists, removed from the Presbyterian university website a manifesto opposing PLC 122, a federal anti-homophobia bill sponsored by the ruling socialist Workers’ Party. This manifesto had been there since 2007. It led supremacists to notice and condemn the manifesto (which presented a watered-down opposition to the gay agenda), that the Mackenzie chancellor bowed to the threats of hardcore homosexual activists.
At that time, some Brazilian Calvinists connected to Mackenzie told me that the manifesto had been removed because Mackenzie’s prime concern was “evangelization.” But I did not see its professors and students going to the streets to evangelize among demonstrators. And the “fighter against ‘homophobia,’ intolerance and religious fundamentalisms” evidently was not invited to be exposed to detailed knowledge of the Gospel of salvation by the Mackenzie Calvinist theologians — an invitation he would have quickly rejected. 
I suffer the same pressure by gay supremacists to remove from my blog my articles and manifestos denouncing PLC 122 and the gay agenda. Because I don’t give in, I am subject to all kinds of actions seeking to censor, block and eliminate my blogs entirely. Other attacks come from leftist Protestants who proclaim themselves to be defenders of faith or Calvinists. But neither my stance nor the constants attacks and threats that I receive hinder the evangelization of young homosexuals, many of whom have contacted me asking for help.
In the same way, I am sure that if Mackenzie had not removed its anti-PLC 122 manifesto, they would not lack evangelization opportunities, including among homosexuals and gay activists who study and work in the Presbyterian university.
However, if Mackenzie had changed mind and, instead of evangelization, just wanted a “debate,” why bring Wyllys? Why let him use the Protestant university as a “pulpit” to preach his perversions?
Would it not have been better to bring in a more qualified individual?
For a genuinely Christian debate on the threats of gay activism in the Brazilian society, Mackenzie could have invited Silas Malafaia, whose Christian view on homosexuality are worth much more than millions of speeches by Wyllys.
However, the belief of Malafaia in supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit as prophecy, healings, miracles and tongues for today could disqualify him from such an invitation. Besides, he doesn’t bear the Presbyterian or Calvinist seal of approval. But does Wyllys have such approval? All that he has done so far in this regard was to say that “Calvinists are allies of the homosexual movement.”
Was Wyllys referring to America, where the largest Presbyterian denomination ordains gay ministers and promotes a liberalism and leftism that would make Karl Marx’s rotten bones to tingle with joy in his grave?
If he was talking about Brazil, certainly he was referring to Genizah and other Calvinist tabloid clones of its liberal sensationalism. Can Mackenzie be included in this? In a direct way, I don’t think so. But indirectly, it is possible. The chancellor is not liberal, but his lack of belief in the power of the Holy Spirit among Christians today makes him vulnerable to politically correct pitfalls and pressures.
When describing the chancellor, the Babylon Dictionary in Portuguese (as accessed on March 2, 2013) says: Augustus Nicodemus Lopes “believes that the divine revelation through spiritual gifts and prophecy has ended, and does not believe in manifestation of tongues as a sign of the Holy Spirit’s activities in modern days. For this reason, he is considered by Pentecostal writers as a cessationist and elitist in his interpretation of the Scriptures.”
Maybe there was a lack of divine orientation to know when not to give in to the aggressive gay activism and when to behave evangelistically. “Where there is no prophetic vision,” Proverbs 29:18 says, “the people of God stumble.” Other versions say that the people of God perish. All of this because, as the Updated King James Version in Portuguese says, “A people that do not accept revelation from the Lord” stumbles, and some are making that unhappy choice because they believe a theology that determines that prophetic visions for ministerial and personal guidance are not possible beyond Bible times.
However it may be, with or without vision, it is obvious that the Mackenzie University didn’t invite Wyllys for evangelistic purposes.
Maybe they just wanted to use his famous presence so that the big leftist media, which so much pampers Wyllys with spotlights and propaganda, noticed that ANAJURE, a new Brazilian group of Christian lawyers, exists.
Such a tactics, if it was really used, is a strange way of achieving visibility and spotlight, especially for Christians, who should believe that God honors those that honor Him, and He gives visibility to those who openly — in the university, television or other places — acknowledges His name, as Jesus Christ, the living Word, has taught,
“And I tell you, everyone who acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man also will acknowledge before the angels of God, but the one who denies me before men will be denied before the angels of God.” (Luke 12:8-9 ESV)
“The LORD makes poor and makes rich; he brings low and he exalts.” (1 Samuel 2:7 ESV)
At one time, Wyllys might have been invited only to hear about the Son of Man who frees men from homosexual sin.
Portuguese version of this article: Jean Wyllys no Mackenzie
Recommended Reading: